The universe created everything did it not? Framing it with a three letter word has placed no weight upon my shoulders or karma for that matter. Physicists even talk of the "god" particle, not in reference to vengeful deity of the Jewish and European peoples. Maybe some will apply it to but what does that matter?

There is no 10 commandments with the universe, the only constant is change.

I think some of the best points of this thread, points that deal with the initial question, are being buried by attempts to define a term that is, as someone stated earlier in the thread, arbitrary.

One of the definitions of god could be a natural human response to the cold harsh world it lives in, an attempt to indentify with that world, and create a bond with it, or humanize it (put a face to it, god). Then instead of a harsh unforgiving world where life means nothing, and your value as an individule is rewarded only with death, the uncaring reality around you suddenly has a kind face that gives you a purpose and a promise of some type of reward. The pitfall is that instead of seeing reality you only see illusion, and in that illusion there are many unrealistic paths which you can see people walking in todays society.

Atheism also has pitfalls, a supposed realization that there is no god often comes hand in hand with a belief that there is no order, or no point to anything. It's possible to be an atheist, and still contribute positive things to the human species, just like it's possible to do the same as a religious person. I don't see as much of a problem with being an atheist, but you just have to be careful to realize that just because there is no one looking over your shoulder, you still have to realize that there is still a purpose, the furthering and bettering of our species.

To me, the pursuit of reality relative to the quality of human kind, without the promise of reward, but simply because it's what needs to be done is more 'noble' than anything. Nihlism as defined on this site, and the works they promote, is the best means to this end. Atheism is a potential detractor, I think that is the answer you are looking for.

*edit* My definition of god, arbitrary as the term is, came from Freud's 'The Future of an Illusion'. Well worth the read.

The organizational and community strengthening aspects of religion are what's good about it. It's the retarded beliefs that are the problem.

Quote from: Mirdautus_Vras

The universe created everything did it not? Framing it with a three letter word has placed no weight upon my shoulders or karma for that matter. Physicists even talk of the "god" particle, not in reference to vengeful deity of the Jewish and European peoples. Maybe some will apply it to but what does that matter?

There is no 10 commandments with the universe, the only constant is change.

Saying the universe created everything is a poor choice of words. The universe IS everything. What created the universe is, so far, an unanswered question.

Physicists very often make metaphorical mentions of "god," yes, and I think it's rather disingenuous of them. Think of how often fundamentalist Christians attempt to use the metaphorical language of physicists to "prove" that their god is real. Just look at the bullshit stories they make up about Einstein.

If you want to use the word god to describe the universe or some abstract concept or something, I'm not going to try to stop you. I just think it's an unnecessary use of rather weighted terms. Why does the universe have to be god? Why can't it just be the universe?

To me, this underlines a fundamental flaw in a persons thinking. It seems to be a commonly reoccurring pattern - people draw conclusions from the emotional centers of their mind, then try to justify it with logic for the sake of validation.

Isnt this the same as fatalist nihilism? E.g. existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value so lets shoot heroin.

Atheism today is not an attack, a denial, or an offensive stance against anything. Its simply choosing not to believe in God and the rejection of religion.

In my mind it is also the most intelligent, considering the lack of any empirical evidence of any god.

Note that the universe, understood as 'all', can by no means be limited to matter, as that which would be so limited could not be 'all'. It seems that some people here have not been nihilistic enough in their approach to question this 'physicist' notion of the universe, which translates to a materialism pure and simple; clearly a belief in materialism will limit your understanding.

Contrary to you I think that atheism is an ongoing attack against God; it is no new thing, granted, but that does not make it less of an attack. Something doesn't vanish just because it is attacked.

Atheism is based on ignorance, for it denies God out of sentiment. Again, 'unbelief is for the mob', it is unintelligible for any truly intelligent mind.

By the way, one does not need any empirical evidence to understand the idea of God, given that one is intelligent enough to grasp it; and if not, then empirical evidence won't do the trick.

Isnt this the same as fatalist nihilism? E.g. existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value so lets shoot heroin.

Atheism today is not an attack, a denial, or an offensive stance against anything. Its simply choosing not to believe in God and the rejection of religion.

In my mind it is also the most intelligent, considering the lack of any empirical evidence of any god.

Note that the universe, understood as 'all', can by no means be limited to matter, as that which would be so limited could not be 'all'. It seems that some people here have not been nihilistic enough in their approach to question this 'physicist' notion of the universe, which translates to a materialism pure and simple; clearly a belief in materialism will limit your understanding.

Contrary to you I think that atheism is an ongoing attack against God; it is no new thing, granted, but that does not make it less of an attack. Something doesn't vanish just because it is attacked.

Atheism is based on ignorance, for it denies God out of sentiment. Again, 'unbelief is for the mob', it is unintelligible for any truly intelligent mind.

By the way, one does not need any empirical evidence to understand the idea of God, given that one is intelligent enough to grasp it; and if not, then empirical evidence won't do the trick.

The universe is only "all" that exists, so in that sense it is limited. Also, materialism doesn't state that the universe is merely matter. According to our current understanding from a "physicist" perspective less than 5% of the universe is observable stuff (including matter), with about 25% being dark matter, and over 70% being dark energy.

If you think atheism is "an attack on God" then you're simply wrong. Your ignorance shouldn't be other people's problem. It also has nothing to do with sentiment. The argument is that there is no reason/evidence to believe in deities.

From what I can tell, the real problem here is that you have a hatred of empiricism because what is observed to be true about reality runs contrary to the philosophical position you have taken. You're the one acting out of sentiment. You can't just claim something exists and then when asked to present evidence, declare that you are exempt from having to do so and anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

The universe is only "all" that exists, so in that sense it is limited. Also, materialism doesn't state that the universe is merely matter. According to our current understanding from a "physicist" perspective less than 5% of the universe is observable stuff (including matter), with about 25% being dark matter, and over 70% being dark energy.

If you think atheism is "an attack on God" then you're simply wrong. Your ignorance shouldn't be other people's problem. It also has nothing to do with sentiment. The argument is that there is no reason/evidence to believe in deities.

From what I can tell, the real problem here is that you have a hatred of empiricism because what is observed to be true about reality runs contrary to the philosophical position you have taken. You're the one acting out of sentiment. You can't just claim something exists and then when asked to present evidence, declare that you are exempt from having to do so and anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

When you say: 'all that exists', then do you mean to say that there is something outside of that which exists? I wouldn't disagree with you there, as 'exist' means to 'stand out', and standing out implies something on which is stood, simply put.

If you intend to limit 'all', however, I must object; because either there is something outside of it, or there is nothing outside of it. If there is something outside of it, then it is not 'all', and if there is nothing outside of it, then it is 'all'.

Your accusations are not helpful. What can be empirically shown has its own relative value, but shouldn't be used as a basis for claims on truth that are outside its scope (=empiricism), for certain things just cannot be empirically proven. I do not hate empiricism, but I call it false, which is quite a different thing.

Again, many of you are taking atheism for more than what it is. It is ONLY a lack of belief in god. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no dogma, no code of values, nothing. It is not a religion at all. You can have a vast array of beliefs among atheists, with the only thing in common between them being a lack of belief in god. You can have a Buddhist atheist who has humanistic values; you can have a misanthropic, nihilist atheist; you can have an atheist who holds scientific truth in high regard. There is no religion of atheism, nor is it an attack on god, nor is it anything but a lack of belief.

When you say: 'all that exists', then do you mean to say that there is something outside of that which exists? I wouldn't disagree with you there, as 'exist' means to 'stand out', and standing out implies something on which is stood, simply put.

I would not say there is something outside of what exists, because things that do not exist aren't anywhere. Perhaps there are higher/lower levels of existence but they would all be part of the same whole. I also disagree with defining things that exist as "standing out."

Quote from: nous

Your accusations are not helpful. What can be empirically shown has its own relative value, but shouldn't be used as a basis for claims on truth that are outside its scope (=empiricism), for certain things just cannot be empirically proven. I do not hate empiricism, but I call it false, which is quite a different thing.

Yeah, certain things can't be empirically proven...like things that are false or not real. And I stand by my accusations. You are attempting to do philosophical acrobatics to avoid having to properly justify your beliefs. Anything can be made to appear true if you don't have to verify it.

When you say: 'all that exists', then do you mean to say that there is something outside of that which exists?

From what I can tell, only one thing currently exists, and it is the universe. When using terms like 'all,' and implying a fractionalized reality, we do so only for convenience, because we are rational beings trapped in a world of metaphor and symbol; in a sense, 'all that exists' is a linguistic conundrum, and is evidence of our neurological and subjective limitations as arbitrary individuals.

Another thing to consider, here, is that we have a tendency to conceive of insides and outsides, because we evolved to intuit as much. If it holds true that nothing exists outside the universe because there is no outside, then the cognitive equipment we have been bestowed with via generational genetic modification is not entirely accurate; rationality, then, is a tool used to the end of the survival of molecular replicators, dealing a blow to rationalism as an outlook.

Quote

I wouldn't disagree with you there, as 'exist' means to 'stand out', and standing out implies something on which is stood, simply put.

But doesn't that upon which 'things' stand exist? At what point do they separate, and what separates the standing from the stand? If it is a thing that separates them, then what separates the thing from the stand, or the thing from the standing? If it is still another thing in both cases, and on again ad infinitum, then the separation is imagined. Only one thing exists.

If it holds true that nothing exists outside the universe because there is no outside, then the cognitive equipment we have been bestowed with via generational genetic modification is not entirely accurate; rationality, then, is a tool used to the end of the survival of molecular replicators, dealing a blow to rationalism as an outlook.

I don't really agree with this statement. It reminds me of how Darwin wondered if his brain/mind was evolved just like that of a monkey's then how could he trust his own thinking. Of course our cognitive equipment isn't entirely accurate. It's an emergent system (like practically everything in the universe). We have however, being the clever primates we are, developed various tools for aiding our thinking. Rationality is one of them. Finding errors within rationality doesn't mean the whole thing gets thrown out, just that it must be revised/modified.

I'd also like to point out that your logic could be used to "deal a blow" to any ideology/philosophy/world view because they are all constructed by humans.